Appeal 3316932

The appeal is dismissed.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling which has been altered by roof extensions comprising a change from a hip to gable roof form and the erection of a rear dormer. The appellant claims that the roof alterations were erected as permitted development and they were not part of the submitted appeal application. The appeal has been determined on this basis.

At the time of the site visit, part of the original rear elevation had been demolished. Extensions of varying scales and designs have been erected both to the rear elevations and the roofs of other semi-detached dwellings fronting [address]. Few of these dwellings were observed to have catslide style roofs of the type which previously existed at the property prior to the demolition works.

The streetscene along [address] is characterised by predominantly semi-detached dwellings which are set back from the footways to the rear of landscaped front gardens also used for parking. Although some side extensions have been erected, there are generally wide gaps at first floor level between each pair of semi-detached dwellings which, along the north side of the road, provide views through to the trees within Cannons Park. Along the road there are grass verges with street trees. Overall, the streetscene has a spacious and verdant character and appearance.

Part of the proposed development includes the erection of a 2-storey side extension which would be set well back from the front elevation of the property. The set back would not be as far as the 2-storey rear addition at [address]. This neighbouring addition is visible from the road through the existing gap between the appeal property and No. 205. Although narrowed, this gap still enables views towards the trees within Cannons Park.

By reason of siting, there would not be an obvious terracing effect created by the proposed single storey and 2-storey side extensions. However, the 2- storey side extension would result in there being no gap between the resulting property and No. 205. The lack of a gap would preclude views towards Cannons Park and this would have a detrimental effect on the spacious and verdant streetscene. Accordingly, the appeal scheme would detract from the positive attributes and local distinctiveness of this suburban area and would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The Council has raised concerns about the design of the proposed alterations to the rear of the property. These concerns are well founded. The hipped roof design of the proposed 2-storey extension would not reflect the gable roof form of the main property. Further, there would also be an awkward visual and physical juxtaposition between the roof of the proposed extension and the rear dormer. This element of the appeal scheme would not respect the character and appearance of the appeal property and would not represent a high quality of design.

Cannons Park is a Registered Park and Garden situated within the Cannons Park Estate Conservation Area but the property is not. Although there would be alterations to the rear of the property, they would not be of such a scale so as to materially affect the property’s contribution to the setting of the Conservation Area. The resulting property would still be seen as part of the dwellings fronting [address] whose rear gardens back onto this part of the Conservation Area. The appeal scheme would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of this designated heritage asset.

For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the streetscene and, as such, it would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policy CS1.B of the [name] and Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies. Amongst other matters, these policies promote high quality design which respects and reflects the positive attributes and distinctiveness of the local area and require domestic extensions to respect their host dwellings.

The comments of the neighbouring occupiers have been carefully noted but they neither alter this appeal’s main issue nor lead to different assessment from the Council that their living conditions would be maintained. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.